green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 2×
6.1 score
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, last quoted 1986 ·
…the state must affirmatively correct testimony of a witness who fraudulently testifies that he has not received a promise of leniency in exchange for his testimony.
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 1984 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1984
2005
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 13 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Brown v. Wainwright
the state must affirmatively correct testimony of a witness who fraudulently testifies that he has not received a promise of leniency in exchange for his testimony.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Brown v. Wainwright
the state must affirmatively correct testimony of a witness who fraudulently testifies that he has not received a promise of leniency in exchange for his testimony.
discussed
Cited "see"
Hurt v. State
(2×)
See Schiro v. State, 451 N.E.2d 1047, 1061 (Ind.1983) (defendant was not entitled to Miranda warnings when defendant spoke to director of halfway house about crime only upon his request, defendant was not object of suspicion and, although defendant was not free to leave facility unless he signed out, he was free to move about the facility), cerf.’ denied, 464 U.S. 1003 , 104 S.Ct. 510 , 78 L.Ed.2d 699 . 4 B.
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Jose Holmes
See, State v. Laney, 654 S.W.2d 383, 386 (Tenn. 1983) (erroneous inclusion of defendant’s alias in indictment was not prejudicial where state’s evidence clearly established defendant’ guilty), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1003 (1983).
discussed
Cited "see"
Milwaukee Concrete Studios, Limited v. Fjeld Manufacturing Company, Incorporated, and Janice Krueger
(2×)
See Pitts v. Unarco Indus., Inc., 698 F.2d 313 (7th Cir.) ("The clear language of Section 362(a)(1) thus extends the automatic stay provision only to the debtor filing bankruptcy proceedings and not to non-bankrupt co-defendants.”), cer t. denied, 464 U.S. 1003 , 104 S.Ct. 509 , 78 L.Ed.2d 698 (1983); see also In re lames Wilson Assoc., 965 F.2d 160, 170 (7th Cir.1992); Maritime Elec.
discussed
Cited "see"
Lillicrap v. Martin
(2×)
See Pitts v. Unarco Industries, Inc., 712 F.2d 276, 279 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1003 , 104 S.Ct. 509 , 78 L.Ed.2d 698 (1983).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Mills v. Singletary
See, e.g., Antone v. Strickland, 706 F.2d 1534, 1538 (11th Cir.) (“[i]t is not the role of the federal courts in Section 2254 proceedings to retry the circumstances contributing to the state’s imposition of the death penalty.”), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1003 (1983).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Mills v. Singletary
See, e.g., Antone v. Strickland, 706 F.2d 1534, 1538 (11th Cir.) (“[i]t is not the role of the federal courts in Section 2254 proceedings to retry the circumstances contributing to the state’s imposition of the death penalty.”), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1003 , 104 S.Ct. 511 , 78 L.Ed.2d 699 (1983).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Patterson v. State
The concept of custodial interrogation does not operate to extend the Miranda safeguards to spontaneous voluntary statements, i.e. statements which are [] not made in response to questions posed by law enforcement officers while the defendant is in custody, ...” Johnson v. State (1978), 269 Ind. 370, 375-76 , 380 N.E.2d 1236, 1240 (citations omitted); see also Schiro v. State (1983), Ind., 451 N.E.2d 1047, 1059-60 , cert. denied 464 U.S. 1003 , 104 S.Ct. 510 , 78 L.Ed.2d 699 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Knox v. AC & S, Inc.
See, e.g., Pitts v. Unarco Indus., Inc., 712 F.2d 276, 280 (7th Cir.1983) (In Pitts plaintiff settled prior to trial with all defendants against whom her claim was not barred by the statute of limitations) cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1003 , 104 S.Ct. 509 , 78 L.Ed.2d 698 (1983); Covalt v. Carey Canada, Inc., 543 N.E.2d 382, 387 (Ind.1989). .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Nasa Auto Supplies, Inc. v. 319 Main Street Corp.
In addressing a motion to dismiss the complaint in a declaratory judgment action, the determinative question is not whether the plaintiff is entitled to a declaration in his favor, but whether the court’s jurisdiction to render a declaratory judgment has been properly invoked (Hallock v State of New York, 32 NY2d 599, 603; see also, Metropolitan Package Store Assn. v Koch, 89 AD2d 317, 322 , appeal dismissed 58 NY2d 1112 , appeal dismissed 464 US 802, reh denied 464 US 1003 ).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Sparks
(2×)
See, e.g., State v. Laney, 654 S.W.2d 383 (Tenn.1983), cert. denied 464 U.S. 1003 , 104 S.Ct. 510 , 78 L.Ed.2d 699 (1983); Houston v. State, 593 S.W.2d 267 (Tenn.1980), cert. denied 449 U.S. 891 , 101 S.Ct. 251 , 66 L.Ed.2d 117 (1980).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Lenson A. Hargrave v. Louie L. Wainwright, Secretary, Department of Corrections, State of Florida
We note further that, even if petitioner’s perception of state law had been reasonable, the “futility of presenting an objection to the state courts cannot alone constitute cause for failure to object at trial.” Engle v. Isaac, 456 U.S. 107, 130 , 102 S.Ct. 1558, 1573 , 71 L.Ed.2d 783 (1982); see also Antone v. Strickland, 706 F.2d 1534, 1537 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1003 , 104 S.Ct. 511 , 78 L.Ed.2d 699 (1983).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Pitts
v.
GAF Corp.
v.
GAF Corp.
No. 83-594.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Nov 28, 1983.
C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Justice Brennan took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.